You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later. Can you believe it Teso, but i was going to rep you. Good post.
Some have questioned what was meant by the comment but to suggest that a terrorist attack, resulting in devastation and the loss of life and livelihood is a good thing is unthinkable. It is simply wrong! No matter where it was, who carried it out or who was injured, what the purpose was and so on, it is wrong to say that it was good by any means. This is not to say that realities are to be ignored, no. They could say we should learn from this but not that it was perhaps advantageous that it happened for whatever reason.
You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later. Sorry, I'll have to catch you later, asf. Folks, please re-read the quote again before launching into your knee-jerk outrage -- this is exactly what Kilmeade said.
So of course, we shouldn't waste our times on other trivial issues until we solve this terrorism problem, yes? And are you sure poverty (not necessarily African) or global environmental policy has nothing to do with terrorism?
I am very sorry to see people's responses to these attacks! I stayed out of the thread on political discussions knowing such views would be ripe and plenty! You cannot have a war against a ghost enemy! You kill one terrorist and two more are created. They are not bound by international borders nor nationalities. It is an ideology which is provoked further when attacked! Despite the fact that such an attack was expected and stupid Bills such as the Terrorism Bill were passed in order to prevent this exact thing, you are forgetting the fact that it takes millions of pounds to improve security, a number of limitations placed on people's freedoms and still it takes one to slip through the net to cause devastation! That is why the war on terror cannot succeed as it is going at this moment. The root of the issue has to be addressed and until then, there will be no hope for an end to it simply by fighting and killing the people directly involved. Let's at least take lessons from history; how did the situation in Northern Ireland develop?? It is 10 times worse here with an ideology...it is not the bogeyman of Al-Qaeda. There has never been one organised Al-Qaeda as the enemy. This enemy was given that face so that it could be challenged and fought. It is an ideology and different people who would not even agree with each other on various things such as even the purpose of their actions would carry out similar attacks in different continents and it is all called Al-Qaeda. Alternatively, it would mean that Al-Qaeda is present everywhere and even though Afghanistan, their "head quarter" was destroyed they still remain a powerful organisation. This is simply not true! It is all part of the tactic of fear and the number one priority is to have an enemy and that enemy needs to have a face; Al-Qaeda.
Read the article; "I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened. "
I did, why don't you listen to the audio? Kilmeade's point was that the attacks occurred while the G8 leaders were all huddled together so they'd have to address the problem. Nobody was dancing a jig, but I must admit someone describing Brian Kilmeade as a news anchor made me laugh.
No matter how subtly put, the message is basically, "glad this happened as the G8 Leaders will have to address the problem". It is saying that it was a good thing that it happened then and there. I haven't listened to the audio and I don't care if he is blowing kisses or has a violin in the background, the message and the speach is tasteless and as far as I know, the anchor only reads the news, he doesn't come up with the speach. So it is not who said it, but the idiots who wrote it up and these people are professionals who spend some time on this and shouldn't have such tasteless comments in the news.
Who wrote it? LOL! You've obviously haven't a clue about the 'Fox and Friends' morning show. It's mindless banter on parr with Oprah, not a news show.
Except that this wasn't mindless banter. At best it was a tactless remark. And I think that's being charitable, quite frankly.
Here's the thing about Fox. It's been well documented, most eloquently in the documentary "Outfoxed" that the Fox production team gives their news anchors a set of talking points and themes for the day that they're not allowed to diverge from or risk losing their jobs. They give their pundits a free reign but if it happens on a news broadcast, it's controlled by the central staff down to a syllable. This was a morning show host though so who knows where on the control spectrum it falls.
Tactless is different than gleeful. I think you and the others read too much into it. IMHO, Brian Kilemeade is an idiot, but he and all Americans are sincerely saddened by today's events. God bless Great Britain.
It is the oldest problem in political history. Everyone is saddened but they also see an opportunity to use the tragic incident for political purposes. Sometimes even use such events to "bury news". That is why such comments are made subtly at best or accidentally let out and would enrage anyone with any common decency! Fox is infamous but this is simply too far.
Whatever... your talking about "Fox and Friends". I doubt you've ever seen the program. If you had you wouldn't be bothered with this discussion.
I never said to not spend any time on Africa. Nevertheless, it is not US biggest concern, nor the world's. As for poverty causing terrorism... well, if you mean a homeless person robbing someone or Jean Valjean stealing bread and being sent to Bastille for that crime, terrorism....then you have a point. However, you don't. Povery has always existed, always. All nations were poor at some point in history and so were its people. However, you don't see the any of them blowing themselves up. Sure there are people who are poor and who would do anything to create anarchy, but what does that have to do with todays' attacks? As for global environmental policy causing terrorism,
But shouldn't world leaders devote some time to discuss them? Who said anything about causing terrorism?
yes, they should So what did your previous post mean then? What do you mean when you ask if poverty has something to do with terrorism?
He may have intended to say that, but that is not what he said. Language is precise. Rather, used properly, language is precise. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Read what he said again. Really pay attention. Read for comprehension. This would be less offensive if he had simply avoided the present infinitive in favor of a past perfect infinitive (eg, "to have experienced"). As written, the sentence implies that future attacks, if they occurred during summits, would be to "our advantage". A more precise and less offensive way to convey the sentiment you attribute to him would have been something along the lines of "if anything good can be said to come from this terrorist attack, if that is possible, is that the proximity to the G8 conference may encourage world leaders to redouble their efforts to fight terrorism." He said what he said. You think he actually meant something different. If so, he should have been more careful with his words.
Unfortunately, very few people in English-speaking societies can actually speak English. I should say, rather, that they cannot express their true meaning.hehe. I am going to give the poor man a break because he has used poor judgement at worst, and nothing more, and has been a little tactless and clumsy in expressing his ideas at best. He even has a point, although probably best left unsaid. I have seen the show being mentioned. I was interested because of the harsh comments on BS actually made by many American posters about Fox News in general. I got the impression it isn't a serious political or analytical show. A little like Kindergarten for journalists. Anyway, the one silver lining is that I have the day off tomorrow. A nice long weekend awaits. Thanks to posters of all nationalities for their kind comments.
I remember Kilmeade's days on USISL soccer broadcasts in the mid 90's. How far he's fallen. I was having trouble sleeping last night, and saw CNN's coverage at about 4:45 am Eastern. They apparently had a cameraman at the scene and were covering it extensively. I flipped to Fox News, just to see how they were covering the situation. They had a brief report, then went back to their rerun of "The O'Reilly Factor" (which wasn't even featuring O' Reilly!) My condolences to all the victims of today's ghastly tragedy. May those responsible be caught and punished severely.
Exactly what I wrote, that institutional poverty and terrorism have some common threads. There are conditions that create poverty that also allow terrorism to grow. There are conditions created by poverty that do the same. While there is not a direct cause-and-effect relationship, some intersection exists. Think veng diagrams. So when you tackle the roots cause of institutional poverty (as opposed to, say, simply increasing aid), you also remove some of the conditions that make terrorism such an attractive option. Also, to be fair, I threw in global warming in there mostly for shits and giggles without any explanation so the rolleye icon is quite understandable. No, global warming and terrorism have very little to do with each other. But my extremely belabored point was that when you discuss global warming or other environmental issues, more often than not, you're not talking about the environment as you are about economic policies and balancing growth in developing nations.
Hell, I don't speak English - I speak American. Very similar language, but with some very real differences.